pve_storage_content

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states '(read)' implying non-destructive operation. It lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or any side effects. More information would be needed for full transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise, one sentence, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly expanded to include more context without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is an output schema, but the description does not explain the return format or any pagination/error behavior. With no annotations, the description is minimally complete. For a simple listing tool, it covers the basics but leaves gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'proximo_target' has a description). The description adds some meaning for the 'content' parameter by listing valid values, but it does not explain 'node' or 'storage' parameters. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate more, but it falls short.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: listing storage content with optional filtering. It specifies the content types (iso, vztmpl, backup) and indicates it's a read operation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pve_storage_content_delete or pve_storage_download.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions optional filtering, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The decision to use this tool is implied by the need for read-only listing of storage content.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.